One of excellent things in @IsabellaMWeber is the implicit distinction between three types of reforms that economists or politicians not knowing the background and history of communist reforms confound.
Reform 1: price reforms, incl. wage reforms and exchange rate as a universal price. These are reforms that in principle do not affect the system. They have been debated since the 1960s by all kinds of fully socialist economists. This is Barone & Lange redux.
Reform 2: But if price reforms do not yield results (as became clear in 1970-80s) because enterprises invest badly nevertheless, wages are increased, companies hoard inputs (all evils diagnosed by--among others- Kornai), then one begins to question property relations.
Only then you move toward pro-capitalist reforms because you argue that companies should have "real" i.e. private, owners.
Reform 3. But --the Q then becomes-- if the economy is composed of capitalist firms, why do we have a communist party in power? This is a point at which you question the political system.
Reform1 is different from Reform 3 and many people in the 1960-70s, never thought that they would "slide" from arguing for Reform 1 to arguing for Reform 3.
Ironically, it is the most conservative socialist economists who were right:
Ironically, it is the most conservative socialist economists who were right:
every movement toward a more efficient and rational system, they argued, would lead us to Point No. 3.
But for most people, it took 20y of unsuccessful reforms to realize that.
And CHN showed that Reform No. 3 is not necessary, and things can be stopped at No. 2.
But for most people, it took 20y of unsuccessful reforms to realize that.
And CHN showed that Reform No. 3 is not necessary, and things can be stopped at No. 2.
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
